Comic Book Overkill

Nerd rant alert...

I have a fear that by the end of this post most of you will be shouting hypocrisy, and more than a few of you will be calling for blood.

Why? well because I'm going to be discussing an issue I have with the veritable pile up of comic book media visiting screens soon. Because that is what the genre is becoming - a pile up - and very soon I fear it is going to be a car crash.

There are just too many superhero related films, TV shows, tie-in merchandise and video games coming out in the near (and worryingly distant future). In this year we will have:

• Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man and Fantastic Four in films, 
• Gotham, Flash, Marvel's Agents of Shield, Marvel's Agent Carter, Arrow and Marvel's Daredevil on TV.
• and relatively less in video games with just Batman: Arkham Knight (although the lack of games is probably due to the shocking history of superhero games.

That is quite a lot hitting our screens, but 2015 is relatively quiet in comparison to the upcoming years. Take just next year for instance. 2016 will feature eight cinematic films and the amount of TV shows is set to increase too. This amount is going to be the standard amount from next year until at least 2020.

Oh, and these only reflect the two major comic book publishers, DC and Marvel's, intellectual property. There are many more lesser known comic book tie-ins coming.

Now I am someone who enjoys comics, so I should love these films right? 

Well yes I do, and you can read my opinion on the latest Avengers here. 

But I can't help feeling that the market is becoming over saturated and the franchises will soon sink. Even I'm getting fed up of seeing superheros plastered on everything, so surely the average non-nerd is too. At the very least people will be getting confused as to whom fights with whom and why certain heroes aren't appearing in certain franchises.

Film fatigued can effect fans and casual watchers alike.

And this fatigue can harm how  the fans feel towards a film. I had this feeling as I went into Avengers: Age of Ultron. The Avengers franchise has the had the threat of the villain Thanos hanging over it since Avengers Assemble, and with every addition the end game has been hinted at more and more. However the payoff for this will not come until Avengers Infinity War Pt. 2, which is scheduled for release in 2019.

Thanos is hardly a threat when he has to sit in that throne for another eight films.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Avengers: Age of Ultron, and definitely the Guardians of the Galaxy, but I still went in feeling that it could be nothing more than filler with an end goal far out of sight. You could argue that it is my own fault for reading everything and everything I find, that I have spoilt it for myself. But whether I know about it or not doesn't change the fact that there are so many films coming out.

And for those who are only casual fans the amount of films must be confusing. Without doing the reading that I mentioned above it will be hard to know what films tie into what. This confusion only gets worse when we consider the two Quicksilvers that are hitting the screens. 

If your an avid fan or not it won't be long before people tire of superheroes. At which point this fad will end as it does with all popular culture. The problem is that by over-saturating the screens the studios are bursting the fad sooner, bringing on their own demise. At the rate they are going at now I worry if anyone will be interested by the time that Avengers: Infinity wars pt. 2 releases, let alone the scheduled films for the 2020s.


Comic timeline photo from Outerplaces, Hypocrite meme from quickmeme, Thanos image from Screenrant.

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Film Review

This review is spoiler free.

Next week I am hitting London's MCM Expo. Since Avengers: Ageof Ultron is the big nerd film at the moment I thought I best watch it soon as MCM will hold spoilers.

My lateness in seeing the film was in part because I had grown weary of the film before even seeing it. We have heard so much about where the Marvel cinematic universe (MCU) is going. With releases scheduled right up until 2020 I couldn’t imagine that the story would be that significant. Added to this the trailers had given a lot away for me, as a true nerd, I had over-speculated and deduced the plot from the teasers.

But I have finally seen it, and whilst I had been correct in my predictions, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the sequel to The Avengers, but technically also a sequel to many other recent Marvel films. Thankfully, you do not need to have seen every addition; nor even have seen the original Avengers. However a basic knowledge of the heroes is helpful.

It's okay, he doesn't start performing a Hamlet monologue.

The film opens with the Avengers creating a new initiative, named Ultron, that hopes to make world peace a reality. However, it doesn’t take long for the Ultron initiative to turn sour. The result is a rather confused sentient AI that believes the key to peace is the extinction of the Avengers, followed by the rest of humanity. The Avengers then have a race against time to save the world and stop the Age of Ultron.

The teaser made it look dark, but it is the usual perfectly balanced between fun and action packed that you would expect from a Marvel film. Even the bleakest situations are met with a quick-fire quip. For instance when Iron Man swears during a firefight Captain America reminds him to watch his ‘language’. This extends to the villain Ultron who appeared to be pompous in the trailer. Instead even he doesn’t stick to a straight script and banters with the best of them. This makes him rather human, despite being an entirely artificial intelligence.

It is a good job that the team have some support in the form of the Maximoff twins Wanda and Pietro, AKA Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. These two new additions are far from normal, and have certain mutations enhancements. Quicksilver is a speedster, and Scarlet Witch is a telepath, has telekinetic abilities, spatial manipulation and, ummm, is ‘weird’ (as described by Maria Hill).

The two new heroes are played by Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen. I was skeptical at first as the last time I saw this pair was in Godzilla, and you can tell how I felt about that here. But this time around they impressed me, especially Olsen’s weird stutter movements as Scarlet Witch (very Japanese-horror style). Johnson wasn’t bad as a slightly dense, but good natured, Quicksilver. They have a great relationship on-screen and you can really believe that they are brother and sister. Each balancing each other perfectly, in personality and power. However, Johnson's performance as Quicksilver is not a patch on Evan Peters in X Men Days of FuturePast (that comparison is inevitably always going to haunt Avengers Age of Ultron).

I believe the best character was Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye. I was one of the few people who actually liked Hawkeye in the original Avengers. Many considered the guy with a bow useless, on a team composed of gods and immortal soldiers. But his archery skills impressed me far more than Thor’s lightening or Captain America’s invincible patriotism. This film really allows Hawkeye to shine. We get to learn much more about the hawk this time, including his personality, now free from mind control, and his sense of humour. Whilst he may be mortal the team needs him as much as any other member. He is a symbol for fighting even when you are mismatched. 


There are also some great performances from Mark Ruffalo and Scarlett Johanson as Hulk and Black Widow. I had read many articles before seeing the film about the two having great on-screen chemistry. Now I see why, and have to admit that both play the part of good people with a monstrous other side perfectly. Possibly the best will they, won't they since Ross and Rachael on Friends.

Still a better love story than Twilight

Overall, Avengers Age of Ultron doesn't change the superhero formula much. Bad guy vs good guys, but Marvel does it well as allways. Never becoming too heavy or dry, and having enough story to stay fresh throughout. It was well paced too, so beats the original which I felt had too many climactic moments. It is a great blockbuster, although I have to wonder why it was scheduled for spring and not the summer. I hope that Marvel's Antman is befitting of the summer spot.

Lucy Film Review

I wasn't quite sure how to feel whilst watching a Korean man knee-slide down a hallway as he fired a Bazooka: scared, confused, patronised and maybe even a little bit violated. Watching Lucy was a complex experience to say the least.

Note: This review is spoiler-free.

Lucy is a science-fiction action film from the director Luc Besson, best known for the more down-to-earth Taken films (which if anymore sequels are made should probably be known as 'Returned' by about now). It stars Black Widow Scarlett Johansson as the titular Lucy, a woman bestowed with accelerated evolution after her stint as a drug mule goes awry. As the film went on, I wished she had stayed as a drugs mule and not as a symbol for brain power recruitment initiatives.

After viewing a trailer I was interested by the premise. Yes, the overused line of 'humans only use 10% of their brains' was the key theme (which I know is a false fact as we use pretty much 100% of our grey matter), but it looked like a solid action film. Also, one with a strong female lead. Unfortunately, this pseudo-science theme was expelled horrendously and in a way that defied its own logic. I will state that it is fine playing with our concept of science in fiction, but a writer should know their story's science on a level that stays consistent.


The beginning gave me hope; the opening scene where Johansson becomes a drugs mule against her will is intense. It set up a great conflict/revenge plotline. Yet, from this promising idea, I was whisked away to Morgan Freeman delivering a lecture on the possibilities of expanding the human brain capacity. At this point the film took a nose-dive.

The lecture was, in my opinion, a heavy-handed way of explaining the film's premise, and outlined where the story would go. How fortunate to give the audience the different brain capacities one might go through in a particular set of circumstances where their mind evolved (a plant and payoff trope if I have ever seen one). Luckier still that the main character passed through these stages before reaching the theoretical 100%.

Acting wise, I would like to applaud Johansson for her performance in this film. Her character evolves into an emotionless being, and as such Johansson had a difficult task ahead. Playing a character with complex emotions can result in two outcomes: a) the actor/actress takes this as an excuse to phone it in and the complex character becomes monotone, or b) despite playing it in a monotone voice the actor/actress delivers a multi-layered character regardless. Johansson manages point b and Lucy actually becomes a fully-fleshed person despite her bland personality.

On the other hand, I was rather unimpressed with Freeman who seemed to play his usual type of character. He said things slowly whilst sounding sincere, so that everything he said sounded meaningful. Unfortunately for him, what he said wasn't too meaningful. I think it could have been swapped for his narration in March of the Penguins, and his character would have been just as useful. The issue I had with his character was his point within the plot. As Lucy became godlike, I began to question why she would need his help. After all, she had already read all of his research.

The Simpsons can get away with it, because its The Simpsons.
Enough said.

Lastly, Amir Waked delivers a rather out of place character that serves as a perpetually confused witness to Lucy's actions. Once again I don't understand why Lucy needs him, the reason given is a reminder of humanity. But as she is a being above emotion and of heightened brain function, I don't really buy this. Instead, I believe he is the remnants of a romantic side story which was forgotten.

Lucy has a interesting idea for an action film, a traditional approach for a revenge flick, but with a female lead and super powers thrown in. Unfortunately, the film misunderstood its own logic and went over the top. I would say it jumped the shark, but even that wouldn't cover fist-bumping the first monkey to evolve. This monkey is also named Lucy, I see what you did there film!


Film poster from Allocine, Simpsons image from TVTropes.

My Top Five What To Watch This Halloween

Halloween is one of those festive events that naturally goes hand in tentacle with watching a film. It makes sense, if you can't travel outside, in case of ghost and goblin attack, you may as well stay indoors and drool over the screen.

 It is made all the better when you invite your friends round to share in the horrors you watch. Also if you really are unlucky, and befall a monster, it helps that all you need to do is outrun your nearest and dearest.

In case you are in a quandary as to what to watch this year I thought I would make some suggestions. So, here are my top five films to watch around Halloween.

1. Cabin In The Woods
   I am a self-confessed Joss Whedon worshipper, but that doesn't stop this being an amazing film. It presents itself as your typical horror flick, yet beneath its calm surface is an intelligent commentary on the whole horror genre. A great film that isn't too scary or gore filled, with enough twists and turns to be genuinely entertaining.


2. Sleepy Hollow/ Sweeney Todd/ The Corpse Bride/ Beetlejuice 
   Basically number two is anything made by Tim Burton (if they star both Johnny Depp and Helen Bonna Carter you get extra points). Like Joss Whedon I have a lot of love for the emo of Hollywood and always enjoy a Burton film. All four of these are brilliant films and demonstrate Burton's distinct cinematic direction. This year I will probably choose Beetlejuice as I haven't watched in some years. 'Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice'...


3. The Nightmare Before Christmas/ Coraline 
   Another director who specialises in making the darker side seem simple and innocent is Henry Sellick. A brilliant stop-frame director who created a film that has probably had the biggest influence on me (The Nightmare Before Christmas). Anyone who is confused at this point and thinking I put The Nightmare Before Christmas in the wrong place needs to go stand in the corner with the dunce hat.


4.  Alien/ Aliens
Lets get a classic in this list shall we? Both of these are great horror films from a time when directors, like Ridley Scott and James Cameron, understood tension isn't cheap scare tactics (Sinister, cough... cough...). The tight corridors of Alien create a genuine sense of claustrophobia and the horror flows naturally. Aliens fear draws from overwhelming odds and an objective that is worth protecting. Whilst they may now be showing their age, especially the wind-up beast that flies out of John Hurt, the unease never fades.



5. Ringu
   Readers of my blog will know that I recently watched the Japanese original that inspired The Ring. I fell in love, and disgust, with it instantly. Once again the maker didn't rely on showing the monster, nor cheap jump scares. Instead the director used everything from subtle camera angles, background side effects and cheaper production values to create something truly unnerving. One of the few films that almost got me jumping behind the sofa. To check out my full review see Here.

   

   This sums up my childhood I think...
   Which probably explains a lot.

   
   

That's my full list. What did you think? Do you agree or disagree with my choices?


What are your thoughts, let us know in the comments section below.

Halloween banner from anarchyonstardoll, Tim Burton artwork from fanpop,

Halloween - Practical Magic

It’s October, which can only means one thing: the supermarkets are acting rather schizophrenic right now. Half of the shops shelving is being taken up by Christmas tat (despite the fact that it is about three months away); the other half is still clinging onto a sense of everyday life. The untouched part is worryingly eyeing up what happened to a large portion of the floorplan, dreading when its tinsel-time will come too. Christmas aisles are like a virus, one that we have no hope of stopping before it spreads. Then there is one lonely aisle, perhaps one and a half if its lucky, dedicated to an event that is actually coming rather soon: Halloween.

This yearly cycle always frustrates me, not because of ridiculously early preparation which angers most people. But because of the way Halloween gets overshadowed. Last year, for instance, some shops were pulling down their Halloween stock the week before the 31st of October. In its place stood more Christmas stock, seemingly five other shelves just wasn’t enough.

I love Halloween, perhaps more so than Christmas. There is less pressure to be happy, to see people and generally less expensive; it makes the experience overall more fun. Christmas becomes so hyped with expectations that it can never live up to it. After eagerly opening my advent calendar last year I spent the actual day watching TV like a zombie. I didn’t even like the programmes that were on, nor do I watch TV regularily (for some reason becoming a student actually made me more proactive, clearly an oddity).

Halloween on the over hand, is barely celebrated in the UK and what is celebrated isn’t my take on it. I don’t trick or treat (often), I don’t have a séances board (the Milton Bradley board game that’s fun for the whole family, even great, great, great grandpa Joe) and I am not part of a cult. What I actually do is bake, carve pumpkins, dress up with friends and watch a scary film.

My personal belief of Halloween is similar to the older Pagan views and other festivals like Obon (Japan) and Mexico’s Day of the Dead. Basically I believe if anything does happen on Halloween it is that the spirits come back to our world once again. Not to spook us out of spite, I can’t imagine the dead would make the effort just to troll the living, but to revisit their ancestors. Having said that I am a realist at heart and don’t hold much belief in ghosts anyway.

Last year for my first blog SaxonDaze, I reviewed a ghoulish confectionery item each day for October. For this blog I plan to celebrate by charting the best and worst examples of horror related games, films and books.  The first of this could have begun with a review of PracticalMagic, which Amy (from the Willow Web) and I watched recently. It won’t however, partly because it would be a rant rather than a review. But mostly because it is one of Amy’s favourite films and I really don’t want to be slapped.

I will briefly discuss some of my VALID reasons for disliking the film and I will try to back them up. Firstly I felt it have a few pacing problems. There were moments in the film were time will have moved on in the story with little indication as to how long has passed. It left me rather confused on more than one occasion.

Scenes seem to change at whim, sometimes I thought it changed without fully completing its purpose. Scenes like one where one of the sister visits to comfort the other. One moment they are talking in bed and raising each other’s morale, the next they are back to everyday life. They had about two or three lines of comforting each other, acting rather sombre, before skipping to the next moment where they are laughing and joking. It is a technique that, if handled properly, could be effective. If we know the characters well enough we can assume what may have occurred between them.But I didn't really connect enough with them, I didn't feel like I had time to. Any poignant or character building moments flashed to the next. In my opinion the scenes change a lot without indication of time, purpose or place and felt rather jarring.

I think the main issue is the source material. It is based on a moderately long book and a film with a running time of around 90 minutes can’t hope to do justice. It does devote a lot of time to other scenes, usually ones featuring cheesy nineties pop and cringe worthy family fun. I understand the need for this as the relationship is the films focus and in films it is better to show and not tell. I am not asking for dialogue where characters just say 'Oh what fun we had earlier'. However, had they made it a bit longer they could have avoided the many times in which scenes change without much explanation. It made it seem rather erratic and flighty to me.

Here looking like Mary Poppins with magical powers

My second issue is the male characters, who really lack any personality of their own. They are pretty much stock characters; you have the perfect husband who tragically dies, the dream guy and then the abusive one. None of them say very much and what they do say is rather cliché. Again, I think this comes down to time: the men aren’t really the story and therefore don’t get the screen time to be fleshed .

Also the treatment of the men in the film is rather worrying. Both the perfect husband and dream guy fall in love due to spells cast upon them. They have no choice but to fall in love and possibly die if the sister's curse is to be believed. The main character doesn’t even warn her husband of the curse that befalls men who marry into her family. The other sister isn’t much better and often drugs her partner each night after sex; I’m pretty sure that is illegal in most states. You could say it is refreshing that it is men who are finally getting these poor character profiles, but really that is a poor excuse.

Overall you could say that I wasn’t very taken with Practical Magic. I know the film doesn’t really target me as its audience, but that’s a flimsy excuse. Many may argue that technically it isn’t a horror film and shouldn’t be the beginning of my horror themed posts. On the other hand, from a male perspective, it is a rather chilling tale of men being controlled by the magic surrounding two sisters.

I will now pass over to Amy at the Willow Web, if she would like to respond to my criticism.




Halloween Image from Pics Hunger, Practical Magic image from Daniella's Bureau, Film still from Spooky Things Online

Godzilla (2014)

Warning: Spoilers ahead!

When I realised that I had missed the chance to see the newest Godzilla movie in cinemas I was rather upset. In fact, upset is putting it mildly: In reality, I felt like rampaging through a whole city like the titular monster himself.

So, imagine my excitement when I realised that it would still be in Japanese theatres during my trip. It was perfect; I could celebrate the latest addition to the series in its birthplace. Even if technically it is an American remake/reboot.

My anticipation was rather inflated too, as most people I’ve talked to have been raving about the film. Often this praise came from the people I wouldn't expect to have enjoyed a monster movie. It sounded amazing, something rather fresh and new in a genre that is often a bit samey. Also, let’s face it; the film can’t be any worse than the Godzilla film made in 1998. That version is always being panned, although it holds a soft spot in my heart.

So, there I was in a Japanese cinema watching the opening scene, almost shaking with excitement. I imagined how reality and fantasy could combine, here in Japan and that Godzilla will burst through the screen at me during a climactic scene. It turns out there would be no fear of that happening. As the majority of the film is set in America. Although by the end of the film you won’t be able to recognise it from the rubble. I don’t know when the film became which tower will topple next, but by the end you’ll wonder whether stopping the big bad bomb would make any difference.

That's an awful lot of fish 1998 Godzilla!

To say I was disappointed coming out of the screen is an understatement. I’m not sure how people have been able to praise this film so highly. Firstly the story is just cliché, which to be honest isn’t the problem. After all when dealing with a monster film there isn’t exactly much ground that hasn’t already been trodden by massive claws. The problem is that often cliché can be accepted as we don’t go for the story; we go to see monsters. Pacific Rim understood this, what little story it tried to impart was just there to explain the next encounter.

Godzilla has it backwards to the point where the monster is fitted around the story. Often the monster fights are reserved to news updates the characters are watching. Most of the film seems to be trying to make an ethical point with its story. There is the underlining message that man has messed about with nature too much, as our dependence on nuclear power is what creates Muto and it's up to Godzilla (as nature's champion) to restore balance. It's a worthwhile message to have I guess, but it just doesn't fit in a Godzilla movie. Firstly, because Godzilla is meant to represent destruction, he started as an analogy for Hiroshima. So it seems more than a little disrespectful for an American studio to take that concept and make him karma's avatar. Secondly, if Muto's origin is how I understand, then it too is natural and existed the same time as Godzilla. Humanity's intervention merely reignited their spark of life. I won't keep picking minute flaws in its story, it's not what I went to see the film for. I wanted to see monsters duking it out, but even then I didn't get this. All I got was a cliched story about a heroic soldier trying to make his way home.

Again, the story of the returning hero is well-used, but if we care about them then it's worth being retold. Unfortunately the characters in Godzilla aren’t memorable either. Ken Watanabe and Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s characters are so basic that they could be any other marine or researcher from any other film. They have no individual personality and nothing that ties them to this one film. I honestly think I could have copied some of their scenes into the newest Transformers and they would have fitted just as well. Worse is Elizabeth Olsen, who spent the film hoping her husband would save her. Talk about your passive female character. With the amount of time the film focuses on her it could quite easily have set her up as a better heroine, someone we could care about. She didn't have military training, she was a medic and she had their young son to care for whilst all hell breaks loose around her. Imagine the tense scenes possible as she tries to survive, help relief efforts and seek shelter. But no. She just ran and hid in a subway station, stopping only briefly to send her son off onto a bus with a random friend. No wonder I kept hearing Bryan Cranston’s character, he’s the only colour in amongst the shades of bland. The opening scene is rather tragic and we can believe he is a man who can't get over losing despite how much time has passed. If planned properly, a story could have written itself about whether his search for truth was merely a figment of a guilty mind. But, because we know full well something bad went down that wasn't his fault, any payoff or suspense is lost.

Somewhere along the lines he forgot to evolve a neck.

What really annoys me is how Taylor-Johnson manages to not only be around during every significant attack, but also how he comes out unscathed. Not only is it unbelievable but the absurd level it gets to is cringe worthy. I honestly expected a scene where he rides in on top of Godzilla to punch a stars and stripes shaped hole into the Muto threat. What did happen was much worse as he ends up connecting with both Muto and Godzilla, the former glaring at him in the knowledge that Johnson has just fried its eggs (although in amongst all the destruction how could it have known?). The second time when both he and Godzilla are flat out on their backs in a scene that screams, lowest point of the hero's tale, they both share a bro-nod and get up to fight again. He’s practically Captain Scarlet, why didn’t the military just let him fight Muto?

Godzilla himself wasn’t too bad, and I like the retro design. However, this just makes it more of an insult that the story is so Americanized. His look and finishing move are about the only fragments of his past that remain. Japanese cinema was eager to dismiss their Godzilla from the 1998 beast and I wouldn't be surprised if they did it again. I can also see why he’s been dubbed ‘Fatzilla’, clearly at 60 his metabolism has slowed to a crawl. Muto looked okay, although a bit too sleek and polished to seem like it would occur in nature even in pre-history. It looked more like a robot with all its curves and piano black finish, a bit like what I imagine a PlayStation 5 will look like. Which it could be argued fits in with the message that Muto is a product of our meddling with nature. But, as I pointed out, Muto existed before we got here and I can't imagine how evolution could have developed that shade of glowing neon eyes. He's just too perfect.

After finally getting a chance to see the film I felt rather let down. I hear there is a sequel being released by 2018. This news made me feel like toppling a tower or two.


Godzilla image from io9, Godzilla 1998 image from cameronlaventureblog.

Guardians of the Galaxy: A Film You Need to See?

Minor spoilers ahead for Guardians of the Galaxy: you have been warned!

Marvel has said, and I hope they are right, that they have a clear plan ahead for their franchises. If rumours are to be believed that plan could stretch right up until 2027. With that in mind they need to have a pretty solid plan, at least more than 12% of a plan; which isn’t really a full plan just a concept for one. You may think I just went onto a random tangent just then, but if you have seen Marvel’s latest film Guardians of the Galaxy you will know I haven’t.

In fact Guardians of the Galaxy (GotG) is a good demonstration of their plans, after all they must have one if they can confidently announce a sequel before its release.  This film is firmly part of their Avengers universe; it builds upon the established and hints not just at the next film, but also Avengers 3 (schedule for roughly 2018).

This could dissuade some newcomers from seeing GotG, but it shouldn’t. Yes, you need a bit of context and need to really have seen at least The Avengers and Thor 2: The Dark World; otherwise you could spend a lot of time wondering what the fuss is about the guy in the throne and the glowing gems. 

However, it could quite easily be watched on its own, as long as you don’t question too much.

Part of this is because the story is rather formulaic: bad guy who wants to destroy everything meets group of unlikely heroes who must learn to work together.  I couldn’t help but feel like I had just paid to see The Avengers all over again.

Many have already compared the two films: considering it’s about strangers teaming up those comparisons are apt. But, like many others I think GotG has something Avengers doesn’t: some truly unique characters. Which is saying something: considering the fact that the guardians have to be explained in a single film.  This film does that expertly, without rushing their introductions either. That is especially true of the character Peter Quill, whose brief flashback scene is touching enough that it has resonates throughout; despite being little more than a pre-qual.

Even Drax whose motivation is little more than wanting revenge is fleshed out enough that we care about him. I liked him the least throughout, and yet loved his quirky-ness. Little touches you don’t notice like how he needed metaphors explained to him built the character subtly. By the end I felt I knew him enough to want to see him reach his goal.

Even promotion posters look similar.

One of my main picks about the film is that it could be rather cliché of a comic book film. It could easily be fight scenes and sparkly effects, which it is, but it is also quite fresh. It balances the well-trodden grounds of group pep talks and the villain still lives with a genuinely funny moment that is usually quite out of the blue. Often these moments are due to one of the characters quirks, which demonstrate how strong the characters are fleshed out.

A mention is definitely needed for another character and that’s the soundtrack. The majority of the songs are taken from early 70’s and shouldn’t fit with the space ships and futuristic settings. Yet, they do and give it a feel that’s both retro and rather comforting.

The weakest point of the film is its villain, who whilst is a clear threat isn’t anything interesting. Much like Thor 2’s baddy, Rhonan and his motivation is barely touched upon.  He could literally be any other insert bad guy here and the film would feel the same.  There hints that he seeks revenge but honestly I couldn’t care, the scenes with him in are the worst as I didn’t care enough to pay attention.

Whilst it is clearly a cog in the Marvel machine I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy and its rag tag bunch of characters. Although a week ago I sighed when Marvel announced the sequel I feel refreshed and came away from the theatre anticipating more. 

There are some bits that are bad, some bits that are good, little bit of both (spot the reference): mostly however, its very good.

First image from NukeTheFridge, Avengers image from Marvel, Guardians of the Galaxy promo image from ComingSoon,

Ringu Review

So, this could well be my last post. I fear for both my life and the possibility of winning shortest blog run in 2014. For in seven short days, I may be dead. I’ve watched a certain tape; if myths are to be believed the phone should spark into life very soon to signal my impending doom. I am referring to The Ring, or rather the Japanese original Ringu.

They both tell the tale of a reporter who watches a cursed video tape that will kill anyone who sees it within seven days. The reporter then embarks on a journey to discover the cause of the curse, in an attempt to break it and save her life.

 

Except, if I’m honest, I’m not terrified. Just vaguely unsettled and a tad disappointed. I’ve been looking forward to watching this for a while now, partly in my quest to find a horror film that will horrify me, but mostly out of respect for the impact this film has had on modern horror culture. When something reaches our shores by achieving such cult status, I want find out the cause of its popularity. So, when I finally found a copy of Ringu, and a fancy collector’s edition at that, I leapt at the chance. I relished the thought of a terrifying date with a ghost girl waiting only for my funeral suit to be finely pressed for the occasion.

Here is my awesome collectors edition... Shiny

I bet when I mentioned 'ghost girl' you all had the same image in your head: a fragile woman clothed in white with long, dark and greasy hair. This image is one many will recognise, yet do not know the origins of. Sadako, (known as Samara in the American remake), is based upon a Japanese urban legend concerning the souls of long-departed wronged women, called Yurei, intent on revenge. The idea has sent chills down spines for decades and, after the popularity the film gathered, the spine-chilling spread to the West. Ringu gained a following that sparked a resurgence in Hollywood for ghost stories and cursed items, which continues today. Unfortunately, not many can pull it off quite as well as Hideo Nakata, director of Ringu, and we end up with the likes of Sinister (eugh). However, the novels the Ringu films are based upon are a fusion of cultures themselves. The antagonist Sadako, as I mentioned, is based upon the Japanese Yurei legends. But the seven-day curse idea comes from American urban legends and draws inspiration from the film Candyman. With a horror heritage like that it is little wonder that both the American Ring and Japanese Ringu franchises gained such strong fandoms.

 

Yet, after watching it myself I can’t help but feel a little let down. I felt uneasy, yes, and there were points which pricked my senses. But alas, no feelings of genuine terror. Perhaps I built it up too much and expected to be shocked; modern horror films have got us used to reoccurring jump-scares and effects that create unimaginably graphic images. Neither occur here. The film had a low budget-feel and the famous antagonist only appears a handful of times. This helps to create a better story experience, whilst not scary as such. The grainy quality and lack of sound create a sensation of real tension. Often, films today have no moments of absolute silence - think about it. Even without dialogue or soundtrack there is still some form of background noise. But in Ringu there are moments of silence, and these moments become almost unbearable. However, I would more think of it as a mystery/thriller than as a horror. Much of the film focuses on the main character hunting through past occurrences; in a desperate attempt to trace the curse to its source.

This Yurei looks quite peaceful,
which just adds to the danger she poses.

I hope to watch the American remake soon and the many other spin offs, at which point I’ll look a little more in-depth at the story and the differences. For now I will mention that I feel as though much of the film is set up. The big reveal as it were, which is indeed a powerful and chilling scene. Heightened by the use of disjointed chords and a terrifying use of something as mundane as a television (no spoilers). Unfortunately, I had already witnessed said scene online out of impatience, and the effects show their age a bit meaning that the payoff was a little lost on me. Overall though, I really did enjoy it as a piece of entertainment and it is clearly different from other 'run of the mill' horror films too dependent on cheap thrills. I can understand why it has achieved such cult status; however, this status has been built up my own high expectations. Hopefully the sequels will shock more as I have less knowledge as of yet. I applaud it as both a piece of cinema, and as a piece of Asian culture.

If you don’t hear from me in a week's time than assume I have fallen foul of the dreadful curse.

(Yurei image from Pandemonium in Paradise)